Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: madenusa

right before the building collapsed, firefighters (within the World Trade City Tower) reported *minimal fires in the
WTC Tower which they could quickly and easily extinguish. (Documented FDNY Firefighters Tapes)

Another lie........



Report is from Battalion Chief Orio Palmer about 78 floor in South Tower who is giving situation for that floor

78 floor was a sky lobby with most of the floor dedicated to elevator machinery . Floors covered with tile, no carpet

Not a lot to burn

Bulk of the fire was above them on 79 to 84

Irrelevant to what was observed this was..www.abovetopsecret.com...

.

a reply to: madenusa

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC Building 7 was $386 million.
So.......This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

You lie.......

Silverstein owed 400 million on mortgage for WTC 7 which had to pay off

Then had to rebuild WTC 7 which cost 700 million

Lets see 861 - 400 = 461

building costs 700 million......

Looks like little short....

Construction was completed in 2006 at a cost of $700 million. Though Silverstein received $861 million from insurance on the old building, he owed more than $400 million on its mortgage. Costs to rebuild were covered by $475 million in Liberty Bonds, which provide tax-exempt financing to help stimulate rebuilding in Lower Manhattan and insurance money that remained after other expenses.

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: wildb

Much of the building was pulverized, the non reinforced concrete was also, it all was for that matter, all that was left was the largest steel beams, and the rest of the steel. AS far as impacting lower floors read this again.

www.todayscatholicworld.com...

Thanks, I was looking for that, sums it up very well.. star for you..

managed conflict" or "crisis management" a crisis or problem is produced.
The crisis is "managed" and the problem is "solved" with an outcome that is invariably favorable to the goals and agendas

Take away our freedom!
Our normal freedom of movement without having surveillance cameras on us, to travel aboard a plane (without being publically frisked in the terminal), to talk on our cell phones about politics etc.,
without being electronically eavesdropped on by Verizon- in conjunction with the Department of Homeland "Security".

a reply to: wildb

What is irrelevant ....??

Poster was saying there were only small fire ......

Problem was the fire fighters had only reached one floor in impact area and were reporting only what they saw on that floor

The fires were above them

Like standing on deck of Titanic and saying "what's all the fuss, I dont see any water...."

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: wildb

What is irrelevant ....??

Poster was saying there were only small fire ......

Problem was the fire fighters had only reached one floor in impact area and were reporting only what they saw on that floor

The fires were above them

Like standing on deck of Titanic and saying "what's all the fuss, I dont see any water...."

Fires and impact damage is irrelevant to what was observed..

a reply to: firerescueIts just what I read ....nothing surprises me anymore...lier lier pants on fire
"just another conspiracy theory". hidden controller with a Nintendo type remote joystick and detonation button came to mind

[Snip]

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: wildb

What is irrelevant ....??

Poster was saying there were only small fire ......

Problem was the fire fighters had only reached one floor in impact area and were reporting only what they saw on that floor

The fires were above them

Like standing on deck of Titanic and saying "what's all the fuss, I dont see any water...."

Fires and impact damage is irrelevant to what was observed..

quickly reflect again that a criminal sinful action had taken place
(but by who?)....good night

[Snip]

originally posted by: VincentVicious
[Snip]

Why do you say that, this thread has gone off topic many times and nothing from the Mods, I think they are being cool.

a reply to: firerescue

Silverstein owed 400 million on mortgage for WTC 7 which had to pay off

Then had to rebuild WTC 7 which cost 700 million

Lets see 861 - 400 = 461

building costs 700 million......

Looks like little short....

And, Silverstein came up short again in a court case.

Silverstein Loses Battle Over 9/11 Payouts

Developer Sought Billions of Dollars From Airlines for Rebuilding of World Trade Center

www.wsj.com...

a reply to: wildb

t is reduced to rubble as it expends energy, in the case of the towers it is ejected up, out and away from the building as evident in the observation..

Just to let you know that the light-weight aluminum panels that covered the facade of the WTC Towers were not that heavy. In addition, how many steel beams have you seen ejected hundreds of feet during demolition implosions of buildings? I might add that is not indicated of a controlled demolition.

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

So last night we looked at how Newtons 3rd law is effectively use to demolish buildings without explosives.

(For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)

Remove the middle floor and let the top block fall and destroy the next floor while equally destroying a floor on the top block.

A 41 story building will start with 20 floors, then 19 then 18 and so on. As the collapse progresses it slows down as the weight of the falling part of the building destroys itself and it's mass is reduced until there is nothing left and the process stops.

So now that we know how that works lets apply it to the north tower.

There was a lot going on at the initiation of collapse but for now lets ignore that.


The impact zone was between the 93rd and 99th floor.

That left 11 floors above. However there was a TV Antenna on the north tower so for now lets say there were 20 floors
to account for the extra weight.

If we are to believe the OS and this was a gravity driven collapse what would we see. We saw how Newtons 3rd worked.

So we would see the top block fall into the lower and take out a floor while loosing a floor. Then the remaining 19 floors
would take out another floor, then 18 and so on until the upper block had destroyed itself somewhere around the 65th floor.

At this time the upper block would be gone and the energy would have dissipated and the process would have stopped. In the end we would be left with a partial collapse.

That is what the 3rd law dictates, the laws of physics are never wrong.

However that is not what was observed, what was observed is the top block falling into the bottom block, first problem, when they meet there should have been a reduction in speed, if only for a moment, less than a second even just a fraction of.

Instead we see the lower block give way offering no resistance what so ever. In fact we observe the collapse accelerate and continue to accelerate almost all the way to ground level. And again past the 65th floor there would be no upper block to provide the energy for the collapse.

This observation defies all laws of physics and could not possible happen with out the presence of another source of energy.

In the case of the south tower this observation is even more significant as the top block began to fall over to the side of the building ( 1st Law) this would removed the energy even faster and the process would have stopped. Instead it continued also with acceleration without any or very little source of energy. However it did so where did that energy come from..

This is why the OS cannot be true, it is also the reason NIST did not investigate the collapse itself. It is the only valid hypothesis they could offer and it would not fit the preconceived narrative. And that’s why it was not done..

Now taking that into consideration the evidence becomes more obvious. As stated for the north tower the top block would no longer exist after the 65th floor, so where is the pile driver compressing the air to create the squibs seen on the 20th, 30th 40th and 50th floors.. there is none so the excuse of compressed air cannot be true either.. that’s one example

Now flame away folks...

The collapsing floors above don't lose significant mass; loads on the successive floors keep increasing by the weight of each additional floor. Even if the floors are crushed one-for-one, their weight still remains, flatter but just as heavy.

In fact, the videos provided by you show remarkable parallels between the explosiveless collapse and the tower collapses. Note how the buildings collapse straight down? That takes care of the truther point of collapsing through most resistance. Then we have the so-called squibs. Note that in the videos of explosiveless demolition, puffs are seen as air is forced out of the windows. That takes care of the squibs point. Finally, Skyeagle posted a video of a building demolition. Compare the sharp, regularly spaced explosions, in sight and sound, with the collapses of the WTC buildings.

Now, explain again about how explosives were used to bring down the towers.

a reply to: wildb

Your video depicts the ignorance that prevails on the conspiracy side of the house. During the crash of PSA 1771, what was the largest piece of human remain recovered?

a reply to: wildb

I just debunked that, sorry.. fire and impact damage is irrelevant to what was observed..

How are you going to debunk reality?

What was observed were debris and dust plumes outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings, which effectively debunks the claim of 9/11 conspiracy theorist that the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speed.

What was observed were fires in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 burning at temperatures that effectively weakens steel beams.

What was observed was falling debris damaging surrounding buildings, which is not indicative of the way demolition implosions are carried out. That is why demolition companies scorn of 9/11 conspiracy theorist in that respect.

What was observed was the buckling of the WTC buildings which proved that fire was slowly weakening theirs structures and , furthermore, the buckling of WTC 1, WC 2, and WTC 7 effectively debunks the demolition theory of 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

www.representativepress.org...

What was NOT observed were secondary explosions as the WTC buildings were impacted nor were secondary explosions seen during the collapse of each of those buildings.

What was not observed, or should I say, not heard, were sounds of demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

What was not observed, or should I say, recovered, was evidence of explosive hardware at ground zero.

In other words, there is zero evidence for explosives.

.

a reply to: madenusa

right before the building collapsed, firefighters (within the World Trade City Tower) reported *minimal fires in the
WTC Tower which they could quickly and easily extinguish. (Documented FDNY Firefighters Tapes)

The buckling observed on the exterior of the WTC buildings just before they collapsed proves that fire was slowly weakening their structures, which once again, is not indicative of the way controlled demolitions are carried out.

a reply to: madenusa

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11.

That is false. Silverstein was referring to the "pulling out" of firefighters from WTC 7, not demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.

World Trade Center Building 7 was "Pulled" (purposely professionally demolished)

The term "Pull" does not refer to the explosive demolition of buildings. Contact your friendly neighborhood demolition company so you can get that fact straight from the horses mouth. Question is, who duped 9/11 conspiracy theorist into thinking that "Pull" and "Pull It," referred to explosive demolition when that is not the case at all?

a reply to: Informer1958

Scientist proved that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory

Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.'

They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

web.archive.org...://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

And, we can take a look here.

Letter from FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: wildb

Did you even read what I posted? it fell onto each floor until it was gone, in the process it was ejected until nothing was left. Thats where the natural gravity collapse stopped, and evidence of something else became evident.

You are correct and science proved this. However there are some people who will not except this fact on ATS, because it does not support the OS narratives.

You will never changed their minds to real science. Pseudo science is what is supported by OS supporters. Because the government said so, and we all they never lie.

Yeah, pretty amazing isn't it..